While on the Conference Call:To mute your phone: press: 4*To raise you hand for a question or comment: press: 5*

Use this Forum to contact Team Law;use this link for more: contact information.In conjunction with our Success Network We announced our participation in the Self Made Man Conteston our Facebook and Twitter pages.

What is the new Self Made Man platform?It’s kinda like Netflix, but better.The content and platform will help you change your life, and the world…

It launches: February 20thAnd, to celebrate,they’re giving away over $35,000 in cash and prizes!

1) I have only seen mention of the existence of “Corp US” on Team Law’s website and a few other patriot sites. Wikipedia and other public encyclopedias don’t acknowledge its existence, nor do they share Team Law’s interpretation of the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. I am confused why such a profound piece of history would be so difficult to find mention of, especially if it affects how the legal system operates and by extension millions of lives everyday. Is this information taught in law schools? How can it be law if nobody knows about it?

2) Do you feel that the development of this system (Corp US and all that has followed) was done with the intent to deceive people?

3) The bible has certainly influenced the development of law in the west, but not everyone accepts the bible as a legitmate source of historical evidence or as a source of human rights. Does admin mean to suggest that the laws have been inspired by principles from the bible, or that our system of law somehow holds invalid non-christian views?

4) How does one know when they have interpreted the law correctly? I am unable to determine whether a contract I signed under duress and without full disclosure is binding. I have read everything I can find on the subject, but am unable to determine whether I have an obligation.

TheGreenGod:The following are our point-by-point responses to your inquiry:

You find the term “Corp. U.S.” on Team Law’s websites and other materials because Team Law coined the term. We coined the term as an abbreviation that people could get familiar with that would easily distinguish our nation’s actual original jurisdiction government from the corporate body in control of our country today. The facts of that relationship are easily studied and confirmed. Thus, we also provide people with sufficient source references to help them track down the truth from their own firsthand research and study of our history and law.

We expect you do not find the term on Wikipedia because we have not entered it therein. Wikipedia is not an authoritative resource; rather, it is a user developed resource where anyone can enter or amend virtually any listing found on the website. Thus, if something is not found on Wikipedia, all you need to do to get it there is post an article. Thus, you find no such entry there because we have not entered one.

We disagree with the allegation that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is, “difficult to find mention of”, we find it quite easy to find; we even provide a links to it on our websites. As noted by SimplyThinkDreams in the second reply to Questions about "District of Columbia Organic Act"— you can search our Open Forum system and find the same quite easily.

Though we do not know the course of study in every law school, we expect most law schools teach very little about the history of the District of Columbia. Accordingly, a law student may run across the Act by name; if that is ever relevant to the students intended course of study. Regarding what is or is not taught in law schools: such schools are designed to help law students become State BAR certified attorneys through the acquisition of a Juris Doctorate degree. As such they principally teach current policies and procedures necessary to pass the BAR exams and begin the “practice of law”. Due to the time constraints and other matters, such schools are not concerned with teaching the law itself. Thus, when a student graduates from such a school, it is reasonable to say that they were taught the tools of the paralegal trade (how to research court cases and statutes) but it is up to the student to focus their style of practice in using such a degree in any manner they desire. Accordingly, should they then desire to actually study the law itself, they would likely have the skills necessary to apply themselves into that historical pursuit. The only problem is, in most cases that is not why they went to law school. They went to the school to get a degree that would likely provide them with an occupation that would provide them with a “good income”. The study of the law itself would not likely be a path that would provide them with that goal. That profession's best income comes from being competent in litigation; thus, not much study of the actual law is necessary. What is necessary for that goal is learning how to always win in court.

Your last question in your first inquiry asks: “How can it be law if nobody knows about it?” The question itself presupposes two elemental errors:

For a law to exist it must be known.

Debunking the presupposition:Though a Law can have no effect if no one knows of its existence, the real issue is: “Should they have known of it?” Most people are familiar with the accurately stated well standing Maxim of Law: “Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.” In this case, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 is a well published Act of Congress anyone can easily look up (as is the history of the District of Columbia).

And, nobody knows about the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871.

Debunking the presupposition:Obviously, hundreds of millions of people are aware of the Act; whether they understand it or not.

Thus, if we remove those presuppositions from your inquiry the balance of your question is: “How can it be law?” The answer to that question is it was passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President of the United States of America; in accord with the dictates of the Constitution of the United States of America. Thus, it is law.

You next asked how we feel about the intent behind the creation of the Act; however, our feelings regarding such matters have no relevance to, or affect on, the facts. What we “feel” or don’t feel about such matters has no bearing on the matter itself or on any remedy that may be relevant to the thing. The same thing goes with anyone’s opinion of the intent of those that passed the Act and or did what followed. Our feelings are simply irrelevant. Thus, there is no point in our entertaining the question.

Your next question related to the Bible and the fact that some people don’t consider it a valid record or source of history. However, regardless of that fact, history clearly shows the affect and influence the Bible has had on law even as a historical source for Law. That fact was clearly expressed by Corp. U.S. in Public Law 97-280; the nation’s founders expressed it in many other ways; which we will not entertain here to avoid that matter from taking the issue off-point.

When Team Law refers to either Torah or the Bible we refer to them as law sources, not religion sources (even though people also use those sources as a basis for their religious beliefs). And, yes, Torah provides the ultimate historical source for the very concept of “human rights”; which is found in the story of man’s creation. Whether anyone contests that story does not change the effect the record has had on the concepts from which subsequent laws (and the understanding of rights) have been formed. The story provides that when man was created his Creator gave the man “dominion, agency and possession”, the three elements that define sovereignty. Throughout time, that has remained the basis of all authority both existent in man and granted by men to the various forms of government mankind has come up with. The last thing we have to point out in this response on that matter is: “The fact that an atheist can be convinced he does not believe in God, while that belief, or lack of the same, will never have the capacity to change God’s existence—it only limits the atheist from the experiences and things he may have had as a result of exercising faith in God. The same thing goes for any other thing. Whether we believe in a law will not change either its existence or its effect. That is to say, what is exists; our belief in it, or lack of the same, will not change it. However, if we know of a thing we can use that knowledge to our advantage; further, if we remain ignorant of it, that ignorance will not prevent us from the effects of its existence. It is a physical law—darkness knows nothing of the light. When you turn on a light in a dark room, though all of what made the room dark prior to the light still remains in the room, the light shines through the darkness and the contents of the room are revealed. Again, the lack of knowing about or understanding a thing changes neither its existence nor its function.

All of that being as it is, the concept that those facts would somehow provide the law with the ability to hold any religious belief, or lack of the same, as either valid or invalid is totally foreign to the limitation from such a view as is expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America. Our government is (wisely) expressly forbidden from such a power or view.

Still, that fact does not negate the propriety of a governmental acknowledgment of the benefits and effects any principle, book or even theology may have had and or the benefit that can be found in any party’s faithful study of the same and or faithful devotion to living in accord with its principles. Such an acknowledgment does not violate the constitutional limitations against establishing a religion through the use of governmental power.

However, it is our opinion that said constitutional limitations against establishing a religion through the use of governmental power are clearly violated by Corp. U.S. when they use governmental power to apply the principles of Priestcraft to educate and compel the people to foster a belief in and believe that:

The card carrying relationship with the Social Security Administration is mandatory;

The social security card is the property of the man, woman or child that possesses it; and,

The social security number printed on the face of such cards “number” the man, woman or child that possesses it;

The people are bound to only act through the use of such a number;

The property and or services acquired through the use of such a number belong to the people themselves in their natural capacity;

The government has the right and responsibility of controlling the people;

etc.

All of which beliefs (regardless of how widely spread) are directly contradictory to the written law, history and facts of life. In fact, the Bible foretells such events and warns the people of getting caught up in such a false religion as we shared in both The Seduction and Myth 22.

Your last point of inquiry contained two questions; which we will respond to seperately as follows:

Anyone can know they understand the law correctly when they follow the Standard for Review and apply it fully to comprehend any relationship. Of course, developing that standard does take proper practice. Most people at first fail to grasp the necessity of every element of the Standard for Review; accordingly, they take elements of it for granted and miss out on discovering the full understanding they desired. Further, it is virtually impossible for anyone, not living righteously, to gain such a correct understanding. Thus, two elements are extremely helpful in discovering how the Standard for Review must be applied to learn and understand the law:

The student must be righteous.

If you are not righteously living in accord with your core values you will neither be able to understand the law nor its history. Ancient prophets recorded a wise lesson that supports this point—they taught the principle that when a man turns away from righteousness his ability to perceive righteous things is diminished; accordingly, if he continues on that path his limitation will grow until he cannot find his way alone. Again, this is akin to the principle of physical law—the darkness knows nothing of and is not affected by the light.

Team Law Beneficiary status.

Having a guide that knows its way along any journey is always helpful. Team Law discovered the ancient path for learning the law and accordingly, we already know the way (how to effectively learn the law) and can help you learn how to follow it and apply it. Another advantage with Team Law is we help people find their way on their path through that study. Though our method remains the same, we do not do your work for you; so, you learn and grow in accord with your own desires, focused on your own topics and at your own speed. That makes it easy for you to learn what you need to learn as it applies to your situations. Thus, when you learn the law having followed the Standard for Review utilizing Team Law’s services you will know that you understand it correctly. Only then do you take any action you may; based upon what you know is correct from your own actual firsthand experience and resources.

Again, Team Law helps people learn how to learn the law firsthand from their own study of it and by that same means they learn how to apply the law.

However, when it comes to the details of your personal situation with the contract you mentioned, the review of such a thing by Team Law requires Team Law beneficiary support. We can help any Team Law beneficiary understand their contractual relationships.

We can say this, though the law clearly provides that a contract cannot be made without knowing willing consent of all of the parties, most contests alleging duress or lack of disclosure fail to take all of the relevant issues into consideration.

For example: we hear those allegations from many people alleging those very issues in regard with the relationship created by the Social Security Administration; however, the facts prove that the nature of the relationship is clearly provided for both in statute and in the documents provided by the Social Security Administration to all parties involved. Thus, the facts show that the parties accepting the card knew or should have known the nature of the relationship. Some allege that they were underage when the relationship was created; however, their current age is sufficient and they did not timely raise a proper contest when they turned of age; so, again, they knew or should have known. Some allege that they were forced into the relationship; however the facts clearly show that no force was compelled to prove duress. Thus, the argument fails purely due to the parties ignorance of the terms of the relationship in spite of the fact that it was well disclosed. Accordingly, that contract is binding. However, our experience with that matter also shows that those raising such allegations also fail to understand the effects and or requirements of the relationship. Thus, their contest is usually remedied with a simple bit of guidance to the facts and the law; which provides them with a far better remedy than they could have imagined without our help.

When people have such genuine questions that include inquiries regarding things like our acknowledgment of the Bible as a foundational book of history and they ask about how that can apply to religious beliefs, we recognize such questions just like the founding fathers did. We see the effect religions have had on people throughout history. When sound principles expressed in religious beliefs were followed in governments, the effect on the people were beneficial; however, when the same were imposed upon the people against their will no good thing was accomplished. The Bible entertains that very subject when the people of Israel desired a King. They were told by their Prophet that if the King was a righteous man and the nation followed that righteousness they would be blessed; but if the King was unrighteous that would lead to their destruction. That was exactly what happened; not only in Israel but throughout history—regardless of the particular religion the people followed. Thus, the founding fathers wisely acknowledged the necessity for keeping religion and government separate. The danger therein is if such separation is politically turned into mandated segregation focused on particular religious beliefs instead of peaceful tolerance for all, that mandate can also form a religion.

Under Corp. U.S.’ control, the people currently face a new religion with ancient origins. Anciently, it was called Mammon and was represented by various idolized gods alleged to have control over wealth and prosperity—if you would serve them. Today, Corp. U.S. fosters mythological ideas regarding the Social Security Administration and the social security card carrying relationships they form with the people. Though the facts and related laws clearly show those relationships are trusts formed as agencies of Corp. U.S., the Corp. U.S. religion would have you believe the card belongs to you and the number on it numbers you. However, the law and the documents that come with the card clearly show the card’s ownership is reserved to Corp. U.S. In like manner, the laws and facts related to the number printed on such cards does not number the people; rather, it is Corp. U.S.’ property and it is used as an identifier to uniquely distinguish the people and others from the trust that holds the card. Also, neither the card nor its use is mandatory. Yet, most people in America today seem to believe in Corp. U.S.’ mythological Mammon based religion’s promotion that falsely alleges:

The card is, “your social security card”;

The number is, “your social security number”; and,

The relationship is mandatory.

Through that religion’s political promotions, etc. Corp. U.S.’ sub-departments like Homeland Security compel banks, businesses and the corporate states to all dictate that no business, license or financial relationships can be acquired or used without the use of such a SS number. Accordingly, the people (in their ignorance of the law and the facts) bought into the religion so completely that virtually all property held in the United States today is held through the use of such numbers. Respectively we call such trusts, “Mammon trusts”.

The bottom line in our nation today, it and the people are controlled by the people’s (ignorance of the law based) service to Mammon. Though with their lips the religious people of the United States of America (even the elect) do honor their claimed religions God, their actions prove their service to Mammon. From the time they arise every morning they are either preparing to go to work for, working for or managing the assets of those Mammon trusts. Accordingly, they devote most of their time, talent, effort, energy, virtually everything they have ever had and will ever have to those same Mammon trusts. That is the very reason we published The Seduction page on our website—to point out the self-evident facts.

It is why, at Matthew 6:21, the New Testament Apostle wrote:For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

And at, Matthew 6:24, he wrote:No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

The bottom line: regardless of whether anyone acknowledges the facts of Corp. U.S.’ existence as a private foreign corporation formed by the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871, or whether anyone believes in the Bible (as the word of God, actual history of a people or the canonized scripture foundational to their religious beliefs), no one can reasonably show that what Corp. U.S. (the United States Government) is doing today with the people is promoting a false religion based upon false allegations regarding the social security system, its cards and the people’s relationship to them. The problem is not Social Security, its cards or collecting benefits generated by that system. Rather, it is the people ignorance of the law and the facts that today allows Corp. U.S. to promote that relationship as a false, but very popular, religion. In fact, until Corp. U.S. only recently began its reign of terror, the social security system worked quite well without jeopardizing anyone. Accordingly, the solution to the problem will not affect Social Security distributions. However, the remedy will end both the reign of terror and the false Mammon based religion by making it self-evident.

As believers in the Bible, we can assure you that its belief can play a significant part in that solution whether you believe in the Bible or not. That is because most of the people in this country do believe in it. Thus, if they can be awakened by reading the ancient writings of the apostles and prophets and see the events so foretold; if they will follow the Standard for Review and rediscover the first law God gave mankind and apply it, then we can save our country from almost certain destruction caused by Corp. U.S.’ Mammon based false religion. Team Law can help because we can help people learn how to learn the law and apply it.

We hope this information is helpful to you.Tell everybody about Team Law!